In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (35/N) And we are well-aware of the regressive nature of our fees. So we work with groups like Scielo, and INASP to reduce the costs and burdens of membership
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (35/N) And we are well-aware of the regressive nature of our fees. So we work with groups like Scielo, and INASP to reduce the costs and burdens of membership
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (34/N) Which brings us back to cost. It verges on obtuse to deny that there are costs to running these systems.
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (33/N) It might not be perfect (qv individual membership) but at least it a start.
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (32/N) Crossref, DataCite and ORCID are membership organisations. If you join them, you become part of their governance.
In reply to
@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (31/N) (More on governance of scholarly infrastructure here: http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1314859 )